A PROTOTYPE OP HAMLET.* WITH some astuteness, the author of

The Prototype of Hamlet has taken care to earn for himself the character of an able and temperate as well as an interesting critic of Shakespeare, before confronting us with the somewhat startling theory indicated by the title of his book. The title, a short notice in the preface, and one or two almost unnoticeable allusions in the course of the earlier lectures, are all we can point to as bearing directly upon the prototype theory until we come to the last two lectures, Here Mr. Johnston proceeds most warily, and by his care and caution in advancing his view, first makes clear to us how near to his affections lies the theory of which he is an independent, if not a first discoverer. He warns us of the necessity of keeping an open mind; he draws back once or twice to dwell upon the higher significance of Hamlet, thus anticipating any difference of opinion his readers might enter- tain as to the importance of his discovery; be then advances slowly, securing step by step the points of vantage from which to view his position, and it is not until we are two-thirds through the first of these last two chapters, that we come to the following decisive words. Speaking of possible proto- types—there must have been an actual prototype, we have learnt—he says :—" But we have not so far to go ; for Shake- speare's picture of the heir of Denmark is more than a likeness, it is the very counterpart of the heir of England. In King James we may find the prototype of Hamlet." So bold a statement should surely rest upon sufficient and well- weighed evidence or proof. The evidence, however, which we find, though well-weighed enough, is purely conjectural, and of proof there is none. That a discussion upon a conjecture so far-fetched should be so really interesting, is a tribute to Mr. Johnston's sober earnestness and to his style of.reasoning

The Prete:tire of Mira et, and other SliakAroarian Problems. By W. Proeton Johnetou. New York : Belford Oorapany.

which can only be fairly paid by those who have read his book.

Some twenty years ago, we are told, the author was struck by the resemblances, both in plot and character, which the play of Hamlet bore to the tragedy of Darnley's death and the principal actors in it. He afterwards discovered that in 1796, a certain Mr. Plumptre bad been similarly struck before

him, and had hastened to publish his discovery, lest he should find himself robbed of the original glory of it,—a glory which

has been apparently his, and his alone, until the time of Mr. Johnston, if we may except some rather exaggerated discoveries in the same direction among German critics a few years earlier. Mr. Plump tre seems to have stuck at nothing that would give symmetry to his theory; not only were the principal characters undoubted portraits, but Polonius was Rizzio, and a certain Dr. Wooten figured in double lustre as Rosencranz and Guildenstern, and so on into the smallest details. Our present theorist does not yet go so far, and proceeds more circumspectly. He urges the want of sufficient motive for his predecessor's theory, and goes on to say that "much additional evidence" has been brought to light since Mr. Plumptre's day. As a long chapter is given to the unfolding of this evidence, it will be worth our while to give some idea of what it rests upon.

Until long 'after Mr. Plumptre's time, the earliest known version of Shakespeare's Hamlet was that which is now called the "Second Quarto," published in 1604, and generally agreed upon as being written between 1598 and 1602,—this, it seems,. is practically our own version. It was written, then, ten to fifteen years after the execution of Mary Stuart, and would, therefore, lack the motive which the same play, written in the year 1587—the year of that event—would have in -bringing before her son James and the English people the memory of her guilt, and so justifying her death. In 1823, however, an earlier play was brought to light, now called Quarto I., pub- lished in 1603, but apparently written some time previously.. It is thus described :— " Tho First Quarto had independent merits of its own, suffi- cient, indeed, to commend it to a certain class of minds as a better form of stage play even, and it has served as the basis of such plays in Germany. This, however, is chiefly duo to its brevity and greater rapidity of action. In it the actual madness of Hamlet appears more probable, while in Q. 2 the language that might lead us to believe that madness real is modified. So the• guilt of the Queen is more emphasised in Q. 2 ; and other points of difference might be noted. Knight well says : The character of Hamlet is fully conceived in the original play, whenever he is in action. It is the contemplative part of his nature which is elaborated in the perfect copy.'"

Opinion differs as to the authorship of this earlier play, though the consensus seems in favour of its being Shake- speare's. As, moreover, a Hamlet in some form has been generally agreed to have existed as an acting play as early as 1589, and probably earlier, this may have been the earlier Quarto above referred to, or a yet earlier Hamlet, which tradi- tion says existed but of which no trace remains, but which has been generally assumed to have been not by Shake- speare. Could, therefore, the Quarto I., or the earlier " hypothetical" Hamlet, be proved to have been written about the years 1586 or 1587—not later—and to have been

by Shakespeare, here would be a motive supplied for choosing to clothe the ancient story of " Amleth" in such a new form as would resemble the tragedy which had taken place in Scot- land, and deepen the horror felt for Mary's crimes. Mr. Johnston goes very far towards satisfying us upon both pre- misses, which are reasoned out at length, and this, shortly, is

all that can be called "additional evidence." We confess to have found .it highly conjectural.

As to resemblance—Mr. Johnston would say, identity— in the characters, the existence of the earlier Quarto, and the presumptive existence of the yet earlier one, do not help, the theory much. It is true that much strikingly at variance with James's character is shown to belong only to the latest play of all; but what is left we judge to be equally at variance. In the earlier Quarto, Hamlet was more de

cidedly mad, and the guilt of the Queen was less emphasised,. —two slight points which we should have hardly expected if Mr. Johnston's theory were the true one. That the inten- tional identity between the hero of the play and his supposed royal prototype, by being adhered to from the first version to the last, should account for the discrepancies in Hamlet's

age at the beginning and end of the later play, which have ametimes puzzled commentators, strikes us as somewhat

trivial. We should rather have inferred from Shakespeare's oversight in the different statements about Hamlet's age, that he would not have adhered so very strictly to the march of time in the case of James. There are a number of arguments of this nature to which Mr. Johnston seems to attach more weight as proving his theory than we think they warrant. The whole question really rests upon the odd persuasion that the character of Hamlet as portrayed by Shakespeare and that of James I. of England are almost identical. We are far from having space to go into all the comparisons brought forward, and there is no single one important enough to bring forward alone, or that carries any sort of conviction with it. In the earliest, the hypothetical, the lost play, Hamlet may have been, to use Mr. Johnston's words, " perhaps altogether James ;" but that in the latest play, the play as we have it, the play upon which, after all, the writer's theory is and must be founded, there are to be found any vestiges of James, we utterly deny. But the author's ingenuity and earnestness are both great ; and we refer any reader whose prejudices are less marked than our own to the last chapter of the book, where the climax of com- placency in his discovery is reached.

With regard to other and supporting resemblances in the play, we are led to expect that something more convincing will be said when the first great step has been thoroughly mastered. Edinburgh has been successfully shown to have been described under the "assumed name" of the Danish town ; it yet remains to associate Darnley with "that fair and warlike form in which the majesty of buried Denmark did sometimes march," to find Bothwell in Claudius, and the famous Queen of Scots in the somewhat colourless Queen in Hamlet. Of this last, the author naively says :—" It has seemed to me (am I led by the phantom of the Scottish sorceress P) that in the play of Hamlet not enough is made of the Queen. She was one to breed all evil passions in the heart of man, and to gild them with the fascination of an irre- sistible beauty, an architect of ruin, a mere guide to moral anarchy." We think he is altogether led by the "Scottish sorceress," if he thinks he is speaking of the Queen in Hamlet.

On the remaining lectures on the same play we need not linger,—they are upon the "Evolution " and the " Signifi- cance " of Hamlet. The first two chapters are respectively, one which is introductory, and one on Macbeth. This last contains much which is interesting and—with relief we say it—much which is not new. Lady Macbeth is, as of old, bad, and the witches are witches still. Some of the writer's phrases are very happy, and some are very curious. The chapters are, we remember, lectures, and waitten as delivered, this being considered a better method Of preserving in their contents "more matter and less art." The lecture form in the intro- ductory chapter is apparent, but becomes less marked as we proceed. We suppose that in passages like the following, art has triumphed perforce over matter, for we find it difficult to conceive of their having been delivered by a lecturer whose style is usually moderate and forcible :—"Macbeth is, indeed, a tremendous epic in dramatic form—an epic in the rush and swirl of its objective action, but a very pecan of subjective evolution struck from the fervid lyre of a heart white-hot. But implicit in the folds of its royal drapery of poetry, indeed at the very heart of its ancient legend, couches one of the problems of destiny—a mystery of the human soul—which we would do well to pluck forth and lay bare to the scrutiny of our intelligence." In justice, however, it must be said that we do not often light upon such passages, while those noticeable for conciseness of thought and language are too numerous for quotation.